Do you have a link we can include? Submit a link here. [1]

• ‹ previous [2]
• 7 of 7
• next ›

In the aftermath of the Holocaust and World War II, many international organizations were created to promote global co-existence and prevent mass violence. Today, the debate about the role of those organizations, such as the United Nations, in international conflict continues. The charter of the United Nations announced that one of the goals for the new organization was the defense of human rights. Many people believed that in protecting human rights they were ultimately preventing individual and collective violence. What were those human rights? Could people from around the world, with different religions and from diverse cultures, agree on a common set of rights that should be guaranteed each person regardless of geography, economic class, race, ethnicity, and social status?

In 1945, Eleanor Roosevelt, a renowned humanitarian and the widow of American President Franklin Roosevelt, was nominated to be among a small group of U.S. representatives to the newly formed United Nations. She was chosen to chair the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Ms. Roosevelt made the creation of a universal declaration of human rights the commission's first task.

What principles could such a diverse group of representatives agree upon, considering that they were not only asked to participate as individuals but also as political representatives of groups? Would human rights conflict with religious and cultural obligations and practice? If so, how could those conflicts be resolved?

In her book A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mary Ann Glendon writes:

For everyone who is tempted to despair of the possibility of crossing ideological divides, there is still much to learn from Eleanor Roosevelt's firm...manner of dealing with her Soviet antagonists; and from the serious but respectful rivalry between Lebanon's Charles Malik and China's Peng-chun Chang. There is much to ponder in the working relationship between Malik, a chief spokesman for the Arab League, and Rene Cassin, an ardent supporter of a Jewish homeland, who lost twenty-nine relatives in concentration camps. When one considers that two world wars and mass slaughters of innocents had given the framers every reason to despair about the human condition, it is hard to remain unmoved by their determination to help make the postwar world a better and safer place.

With the exception of Eleanor Roosevelt, most of the members of the committee that shaped the Declaration are now little remembered outside of their home countries. Yet they included some of the most able and colorful figures of their time: Carlos Romulo, the Filipino journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for his articles predicting the end of colonialism, John P. Humphry, the dedicated Canadian director of the UN's Human Rights Division, who prepared the preliminary draft of the Declaration; Hansa Mehta of India, who made sure the Declaration spoke with power about equal rights for women well before they were recognized in most legal systems; Alexi Pavlov, brilliant nephew of the conditions-reflex scientist...Chile's Hernan Santa Cruz, an impassioned man of the left who helped assure that social and economic rights would have pride of place in the Declaration along with traditional political and civil liberties. ¹

As the document was being negotiated, the drafters debated from religious and cultural positions as well as political perspectives. While some favored a framework of individual rights, others wanted more attention paid to the rights of groups. How would the delicate questions of religion be resolved? Should religion be given a place in this statement of human rights? What would be understood as the basis for human rights? Others feared that universal rights would infringe on traditional religious practice. Throughout the process the framers did their best to resolve those and other concerns. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.

After the document was made public many saw it as an important model for preserving human dignity and preventing violence. Others were less impressed. One challenge for supporters of human rights has been to take the ideas expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and give them meaning to individuals and groups across the world. Adam Seligman, a scholar of religion and human rights, cautions:

Making absolute and universal claims does often involve us in a stance of intolerance towards local cultures and particular identities that do not necessarily adhere to our universal and absolute beliefs. The history of many religions...is replete with examples of this intolerance. Such a stance of intolerance is, however, unacceptable in today's pluralistic and diverse world.

This is a contradiction that all those concerned with both issues of human rights and a valuation of diverse religious identities...must recognize.
In The Ambivalence of the Sacred, Scott Appleby writes about the efforts of many religious individuals and communities to reconcile those apparent contradictions:

The modern human rights era - the half-century following the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 - presented religious communities with challenging new opportunities to serve the cause of peace. As religions found themselves called on to build or strengthen cultures of nonviolence and civic tolerance, religious leaders and scholars initiated internal debates and external dialogues on the religious sources and meanings of universal human rights. In the aftermath of the Cold War, these debates and dialogues took on a greater urgency.²

In a world plagued by violence, efforts to build peace must be valued. It is the challenge for educators in the 21st Century to find ways for people to come together to learn to respect differences as they take responsibility for negotiating a safe and secure future.

Connections
What do you imagine were the debates and dialogues that took place as people across the world first considered the notion of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights? How have those conversations changed today? Are there other ways to outline minimum standards for the treatment of human beings across the globe without the articulation of universal rights?
learn more about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [3]. As you read the documents what strikes you?

In 1969, Rene Cassin described what he understood as the relationship between the Ten Commandments and Human Rights [4].

Charles Malik was the Lebanese ambassador to the United States and in 1951, after Eleanor Roosevelt's retirement, he became the Chairman of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. In a talk before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [5] on November 4, 1949, he spoke about the importance of human rights.

In a speech called "Making Human Rights Come Alive [6]," Eleanor Roosevelt described the challenges in creating a document that would bridge different cultures and traditions.

---

¹ Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (New York: Random House: 2001) pps. XIX-XX.

² N. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence and Reconciliation (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield: 200) p. 245

• ‹ previous [7]
• 7 of 7
• next ›